The REAL Terrorists!
August 10, 2007 – 10:05 amTerrorism is defined as “violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals…acts which are intended to create fear or terror.â€?
By this definition, and ever since 9/11, the Bush team has engaged in terrorism to bully Congress into granting it increased presidential power. And he has terrorized the American people by convincing them that failure to support the government’s Iraq strategy:
- Is Unpatriotic, because it implies that we do not support our troops.
- Is Dangerous, because it encourages the enemy to strike again, this time with a mushroom cloud.
- Former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge has acknowledged that Bush Regime officials forced him to elevate the “threat level” on what he calls “flimsy evidence.” Why? To create fear in the public’s mind and pave the way for the administration’s assault on the Constitution and our civil liberties.
Bush claims that he has kept America safe since 9/11. But that claim ignores the country’s very real and present vulnerabilities. Six years after the 9/11 attacks, the administration has still failed to secure American ports, railroads and airports from terrorist attack, and has put the profits of the chemical and nuclear-power industries ahead of safeguarding their plants.
Bush talks about “staying on the offensive� against terrorism, but it was his decision to invade Iraq that diverted resources from the real offensive, the one against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Bush’s incessant fear-mongering — and the Democrats’ refusal to challenge him — has had one notable success. The only issue on which Americans say that they trust Republicans more than Democrats is terrorism, because Bush has taught us to fear the terrorists. The Democrats believed the Bush lie and acceded to his requests out of fear of being out of step with public sentiment and losing their jobs. They show only fear of Republicans.
So let’s be clear about who the REAL terrorists are: Bush may not have flown a plane into the Twin Towers, but he is no less guilty of terrorism than bin-Laden, Zawahiri and the fanatics who did.
20 Responses to “The REAL Terrorists!”
What a crock of…. Definately a mental disorder.
By DeadMessenger on Aug 11, 2007
Bush’s philosophy may be considered extreme to some, even paranoid. Yet, the recent ‘Infatada NYC’ T-shirt fiasco within the NYC educational community is just another one of the pieces of evidence which have come to light to support the contention that things are definitely afoot in this country. That the prinicpal resigned her post may only have been a result of a chess move on their part. They may have considered that they pushed too hard and, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, she chose to reduce her public posture. Now we wait for the next shoe to drop.
By DAD on Aug 11, 2007
Sorry about the type….”Intifada”
By DAD on Aug 12, 2007
“What a crock of…. Definately a mental disorder”
Sparkling, cogent, provocative comments like this really elevate the level of conversation on this board!
I can’t wait for more words of wisdom from the author of this pithy remark.
By the way – the correct spelling is DEFINITELY!
By Steve Levine on Aug 12, 2007
Look it up in your Funk’n Wagnall.
Sewerage, generally should be, and in a civilized society is, directed to the lowest level possible. I don’t see much value in elevating it. Unless of course you want to swim in it.
Equating the American Presidency to indiscriminate homicidal terrorisim, is definately swearage of the most odoriferous putrid kind. It, deserves the swiftest and most efficient toiletry possible.
By DeadMessenger on Aug 12, 2007
Obviously (but not surprisingly), my equating of Bush’s rhetoric and behavior with “terrorism� is beyond your ability to understand and acknowledge.
But when you search the speeches of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff and Alberto Gonzales, you’ll find countless examples of warnings and raised threat levels — most of which were opportunistically timed to divert our attention from the administration’s troubles –and which proved to be false!
Those warnings were clearly designed to scare us into believing the end is near unless we went along with the Iraq invasion, with torture, with wiretapping and with other violations of our Constitutional liberties.
Look again at the definition of “terrorism,� and then tell me that this administration’s behavior doesn’t meet the test.
It doesn’t qualify as “indiscriminate homicidal terrorism,” but it’s terrorism nonetheless.
By Steve Levine on Aug 12, 2007
I’m always amused when people start using $10 words like “odoriferousâ€? BEFORE they’ve learned how to spell the simple ones — like “definitelyâ€? — and before they’ve mastered the distinction between “sewageâ€? and “sewerage.â€?
You used the latter in a previous post, when you should have used the former.
There IS a difference.
By Steve Levine on Aug 12, 2007
…still a crock….still a mental disorder…
By DeadMessenger on Aug 12, 2007
I haven’t seen this debating style since…well, since fifth grade!
Remember? Never address the substance of the comments you disagree with, or attempt to refute them, or explain WHY you disagree…just repeat your ad hominem attack.
I’m surprised you didn’t add the schoolyard “nyah nyah� to your post!
By Steve Levine on Aug 12, 2007
It appears that they disagree!
By DAD on Aug 12, 2007
I would take issue with you on two fronts. Firstly, you appear to seek to draw a moral equivalency between George Bush in particular, and Islamic Supremacist leaders. To say that Bush is “no less guilty” is to deny any concept of guilt by degree. (Certainly a child that accidentally burned 10ft of forest is less guilty than a child who burned 10 acres and destroyed a home). To a great extent it is clear that while civilians have been killed by US forces, they are seldom the deliberate and intentional target, whereas Islamic Supremacists by design target civilians for bloody and dramatic mass slaughter. There is no direct equivalency here, so I can not agree to the notion of “no less guilty”.
Secondly the essay seems to find it novel or unusual that the US government, specifically the Bush “Regime” uses coercion internally (you give no example of direct force). As George Washington well said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.” Force and coercion have been fundamental tools for most all government throughout history. Did you cry out against the forcible seizing of Elian Gonzalez? The siege and mass slaughter of people of marginal religious faiths at the Waco compound? The military style slaying of the family members at Ruby Ridge?
If there is a link toward terror against US Citizens, a case lays more strongly against the Clinton administration than the Bush administration. My point however is keep rolling back through history, and in most any government everywhere we will find examples just like these. It is not a unique feature to any particular administration, it occurs amongst humans in most all structures of power at some time or another, and there is little that is usual or even remarkable about George Bush in this regard.
By Maruis on Aug 14, 2007
Read my post again: I acknowledged that “Bush may not have flown a plane into the Twin Towers,â€? but I do believe his deliberate, incessant fear-mongering and lying – designed to terrorize his political opponents — IS the moral equivalent of the actions of Islamic fanatics.
The link here is intent – the deliberate nature of both actions.
And if U.S. forces have unintentionally killed civilians, those deaths are no less final and horrible than the deaths of those who were deliberately targeted for mass slaughter. And those who “unintentionally� caused those deaths are no less guilty.
It may not be novel or unusual for other governments to use force or coercion. But the U.S. is supposed to be the standard for morality. So when OUR government lies to us and distorts the facts in a deliberate attempt to frighten us into waging war, we cede that moral high ground and become no better than history’s despotic, amoral regimes.
That’s what the Bush regime has done. And it makes his administration not only despicable but highly unusual.
By Steve Levine on Aug 14, 2007
I applaud this post by Steve Levine.
What a breath of fresh air– and it’s always a pleasure to hear someone speak the truth about these criminals who inhabit the White House. Somebody has to do it, because the press certainly isn’t.
Karl Rove’s resignation is the best news I’ve heard in years, but Joe Lieberman’s call to attack Iran is perhaps the worst.
By Vince Williams on Aug 14, 2007
Careful Vince:
One’s ‘truth’ is another’s propaganda. Steve presents an analysis and expresses opinion based upon observations of fact as he sees them. We argue this to and fro. Absolute truth?? Open to debate.
“Arbiet Macht Frei” did not!!
By DAD on Aug 14, 2007
D__,
Who said anything about “absolute” truth?
We’re talking politics here, not philosophy, at least at this point.
Besides, I don’t believe it’s within the scope of puny humankind to apprehend “absolute” truth.
I’ll tell you one thing, though. I know a liar when I see one, and George W. Bush is one of the biggest liars I’ve ever seen.
Too bad the only way he can be “big” is by stepping on the ‘little’ guys who are shedding their blood in Iraq.
By Vince Williams on Aug 14, 2007
Is anyone else getting a fatal error message when he submits a comment?
By Vince Williams on Aug 14, 2007
Ditto on the fatal error message. Just close the page. It will be sent.
You said: “it’s always a pleasure to hear someone speak the truth about these criminals….”
I responded accordingly. We’re not talking politics nor philosophy. We’re talking point of view.
There is a legal test called “the ordinary man”. I would accept that as a common denominator to support your position regarding the above. However, there is likely enough diversity on the matter such that your contention that Steve has, indeed spoken the truth, would not be met.
By DAD on Aug 14, 2007
In my original post, as well as in Post #6, I cited facts – verifiable facts about the Bush administration’s words and behavior that are on the public record.
Those words and that behavior led me to the point of view that Bush and his team deliberately lied, hid the truth and misled us.
There may be a diversity of opinion about this administration, but there should be NO disagreement about the facts; they constitute the objective truth.
As Casey Stengel said, “you could look it up.�
By Steve Levine on Aug 14, 2007
Though facts may stand as objective truth, the conclusions drawn from them may not share unanimity. You are, in many respects, editorializing, and I certainly do not disagree with your right or priviledge to do so.
I also take this opportunity to correct myself. The legal test is call ‘the reasonable man doctrine”. In that regard, Vince’s observations might prevail.
By DAD on Aug 14, 2007
NB: the reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded.
By DAD on Aug 14, 2007